Christ for Us

Episode 19: The Course of Error in the Church, C. P. Krauth

In Episode 19, Pastor Preus discusses the course of error in the Church as described by Charles Porterfield Krauth in his book, "The Conservative Reformation." Enters the Church in three stages: 
1. Asking for tolerance. 2. Demanding Equality. 3. Asserting Supremacy. 
Listen to how this progression of error is taught in Scripture, seen in history, and how it takes root in the present day, including in our own lives. You can read the quote and outline to the Bible Study at Christforus.org. 
#Theology #Krauth #errorinthechurch #Lutheran #Biblestudy
 
After recording this episode, I discovered that Charles Porterfield Krauth’s “Conservative Reformation” is available free online at lutheranlibrary.org as a pdf. You can find it here. You can also purchase “Conservative Reformation” from CPH .
Course of Error in the Church
By Charles Porterfield Krauth
When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balanced forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. There recommendation is that they repudiate faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skilful [sic] in combating it. Charles Porterfield Krauth, Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, CPH, St. Louis, 195-196.
Summary of Krauth’s Thesis on Error in the Church
Error enters the Church in three stages:
Asking for Toleration.
Demanding Equal Rights.
Asserting Supremacy.
Biblical Evidence of Krauth’s Thesis on Error in the Church
The High Places, God’s prohibition to let the pagan nations abide with them.
Solomon tolerated the high places. 1 Kings 3; 11
Soon the kings of Judah and Israel worshiped the other gods as equals to the true God. 1 Kings 12:25-33
Ahab and Jezabel as well as Athaliah and Manasseh forbid true worship. 1 Kings 18; 2 Kings 11; 21
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. 2 Corinthians 6:14-15
A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Galatians 5:9
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 1 Corinthians 5:6-8
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. Romans 16:17
Evidence in History
The Roman Catholic Church on the doctrine of justification by works.
The Reformed Church verses the Lutheran Church and forced unions, Rationalism, Higher Criticism, Unionism, etc.
C. P. Krauth’s experience with Protestant Unionism in America, Samuel Simon Schmucker (1799-1873), organizer of the General Synod, founder of Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg and Pennsylvania College. He among others pushed for union among the protestants in America, even removing five articles from the twenty-eight articles of the Augsburg Confession.  
What we are seeing today!
In the Church/Synod
Feminism, universalism, and higher criticism in the Church
Open Communion                                                                                                                
Evolution, relativism
Unionism, thinking that Lutheran is equal to other denominations and it is just a matter of preference.  
In the Nation
Sexual Revolution
Abortion
“LGBT”
In Yourself!
What sins and errors have you tolerated?
What opinions have you accepted as equal to the teaching of Scripture?
What opinions and errors and sins have you permitted to rule over you in regards to your faith and morals instead of what Scripture teaches.
First Petition of the Lord’s Prayer from Luther’s Small Catechism
Hallowed be Thy name. What does this mean? God’s name is certainly holy in itself, but we pray in this petition that it may be kept holy among us also. How is God’s name kept holy? God’s name is kept holy when the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity, and we, as the children of God, also lead holy lives according to it. Help us to do this, dear Father in heaven! But anyone who teaches or lives contrary to God’s Word profanes the name of God among us. Protect us from this, heavenly Father!

The Law in Service to the Gospel: Trinity 13 Sermon 2024

Trinity 13 sermon preached by Rev. James Preus on Luke 10:23-37. You can read the text at Christforus.org. 
What is the first way the law serves the Gospel? 
How is Jesus the Good Samaritan?
What is another way the law serves the Gospel? 

Episode 18: Does James Disagree with Paul on Justification?

Episode 18 deals with the apparent disagreement between St. James and St. Paul on the doctrine of justification. Is a sinner justified by faith alone apart from works (Romans 3:28) or is a sinner justified by works and not faith alone (James 2:24)? How do we reconcile the two? 
You can read and follow along to the Bible study at Christforus.org. 
#theology #Lutheran #StPaul #StJames #Justification #Faith #Works
 
Augsburg Confession IV
Our churches teach that people cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works. People are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake. By His death, Christ made satisfaction for our sins. God counts this faith for righteousness in His sight (Romans 3 and 4).
Romans 3:21-28
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 4:4-8
Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
According to Paul, a sinner is clearly justified before God apart from works through faith alone.
Galatians 2:16
yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 3:10-14
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
Philippians 3:8-9
For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith
Does James disagree with Paul on Justification?
James 2:14-26 (especially verse 24)
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
“From James 2:24, they cite, ‘You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.’ No other passage is supposed to be more contrary to our belief. But the reply is easy and plain. If the adversaries do not attach their own opinions about the merits of works, the words of James have in them nothing that is unhelpful to us.” Ap. V (III). 123.
What Paul writes in Romans 3 and 4 and Galatians 2 and 3 appears to disagree with what St. James writes in James 2. How can we deal with this apparent contradiction?  
To solve this problem, we have several options.
Admit that Paul and James disagree. Some have determined along with some in the ancient church that James is not authentic, so it cannot be used against Paul. Paul’s letters belong to the classification of homologoumena, which are the books of the New Testament which had unanimous support among the early church. James falls under the classification of antilegomena, because, as Eusebius writes, “since few of the ancients quote it,” and he included it among the disputed books.
This is why Martin Luther called James “an epistle of straw.” However, He still found it useful. Luther writes concerning the Epistle of James:
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works [2:24]. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac [2:21]; though in Romans 4:2-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works [Jas. 2:23] of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15:6. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle. AE 35:395-96.
Luther gives a couple more reasons for rejecting James as apostolic, and which you can read in AE 35:396-97, and concludes, “Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.” AE:35:397.
 
The second option is to do as the Roman Catholics have done and interpret Paul in light of James. To do this, they will interpret the words “law” and “works” differently to say that Paul meant only the ceremonial law of the Jews or the ceremonial works of the Jews, which no Christians today believe Christians are obligated to keep (see Colossians 2:16-17).
The weakness in this argument is that Paul clearly speaks not simply of the ceremonial law of the Jews, but of the moral law. See Romans 3:9-20
9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands;     no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” 14     “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16     in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.”18     “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (especially verse 20)
And Romans 7:7-17. 7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. 13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
It is untenable that when Paul says that a person is justified apart from works of the Law that he only means ceremonial laws of the Jews and does not refer to all works.
Do as the Lutherans have done (despite Luther Himself not doing it) and interpret James in light of Paul. They do this by clarifying that James uses the word faith and justification in a different way than Paul does. To do this, we need to answer a few questions.
What does Paul mean by faith in Romans 3:21-28 and Galatians 2:16 and 3:10-14?
Paul means faith that holds onto and trusts the promise that God is reconciled to you and forgives you for Christ’s sake. This faith can only come about through rebirth by the Holy Spirit.
What does James mean by faith that does not justify without works in James 2:19, 24 and 26?
James is speaking of an historical faith, one that only holds to knowledge, but does not trust truly trust the promise. James is making a distinction between historical knowledge and true saving faith.
“He made a distinction between dead and living faith. He says that faith that does not bring forth good works is dead. He also says that a living faith brings forth good works. Furthermore, we have shown already several times what we mean by faith. For we do not mean passive knowledge, such as devils have. Instead, we mean faith that resists the terrors of conscience and encourages and comforts terrified hearts.” Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Article V (III). Love and Fulfilling the Law, 128 [249].
What does Paul mean by justify? Read Romans 4:2-8.
By justify, Paul means to be declared righteous and innocent before God’s judgment throne, to be reconciled with God and to truly have peace with Him (Romans 5:1). To be justified means that you will be saved.
What does James mean by justify in James 2:24?
James is not speaking of being justified before the judgment seat of God, whereby, a person is accounted righteous before God by his works. Rather, James uses justify to mean vindication, that a person’s justifying faith is outwardly proved by his good works.
“Here ‘to be justified’ does not mean that a righteous person is made from a wicked person. It means to be pronounced righteous in a judicial sense, as in Romans 2:13, ‘For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.’ These words ‘doers of the law who will be justified’ contain nothing contrary to our doctrine. We, too, believe about James’s words, ‘A person is justified by works and not by faith alone’ (2:24) because people are certainly pronounced righteous having faith and good works. As we have said, the saints’ good works are righteous and please God because of faith. For James praises only works produced by faith, as he testifies when he says of Abraham, ‘Faith was completed by his works’ (2:22). ‘Doers of the law who will be justified, ‘namely, those who believe God from the heart are pronounced righteous. Afterward, they have good fruit, which please Him because of faith. So they are the fulfillment of the Law. These things, simply put, contain nothing incorrect. However, they are distorted by the adversaries, who attach to them godless opinions made in their mind. For it does not follow that (a) works earn the forgiveness of sins, (b) works regenerate hearts, (c) works are an atoning sacrifice, (d) works please without Christ as the Atoning Sacrifice, and (e) works do not need Christ as the Atoning Sacrifice. James says nothing about these things. Yet, the adversaries shamelessly conclude such things from James’s words.” Ap. V (III) 131 [252]-132 [253]
Examination of the Council of Trent vol. 1:539: “It is clear that James is disputing about the demonstrations or manifestation of faith against the idle opinion of an empty faith and justification, for he says: ‘If a man says he has faith, let him show his faith by his works.’ And he takes the example of Abraham, which the angel himself interprets of the proof or manifestation, when he says: ‘Now I know that you fear the Lord.’ James, therefore, is speaking of this, that the obedience and good works of Abraham declared and furnished proof that He had truly been justified by faith. For to James ‘to be justified’ means to be declared righteous through external testimonies.”
Many will object to the attempt to reconcile Paul and James by saying that they are using the same words in different ways, but this is common in all languages. Words do not always have the same meaning and must be understood in their context. James himself uses several words with different meanings.
In James 1:13, James says, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempts (πειράζει) no one.” Yet, in John 6:6, John records the exact same word in Greek (πειράζω) to say, “Jesus said this to test πειράζων him, for He Himself knew what He was about to do.” It is the same word in Greek, but in different contexts it can mean to test, which God does to strengthen our faith, or it can mean to tempt, which Satan, the world, and our sinful flesh do to destroy our faith.
In James 1, James uses the word faith with a different meaning than he does in chapter 2. In verse 6, he says, “But let him ask in faith, without doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord…” With these words, James describes saving faith, which not only has knowledge, but steadfast trust to receive what one believes. Yet, in chapter 2, he describes a dead faith, which only has knowledge, a faith which even the demons have! (vs 19). James certainly is using the word faith in more than one way in this short letter. It is certainly possible that James and Paul could use the word faith in two different ways in completely different letters.
Melanchthon makes several other good points regarding James and justification.
He quotes St. Paul in 1 Tim. 1:5, “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.”
He points out that James speaks of works that follow faith.
He points out that James does not teach that a person is regenerated by works, but rather explicitly says that one is born again of the Word: “James said a little earlier that regeneration happens through the Gospel. For he says in James 1:18, ‘Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.’ When James says that we have been reborn by the Gospel, he teaches that we have been born again and justified through faith. For the promise about Christ is grasped only through faith when we set it against the terrors of sin and of death. James does not, therefore, think that we are born again through our works.” Ap. V (III): 126.
Chemnitz also clarifies in the Solid Declaration Article II:41: “This should not be understood as though justification and renewal were separated from each other in such a way that a genuine faith sometimes could exist and continue for a time together with evil intention.”
It is equally important to point out as Chemnitz does in SD II:43, “For faith makes righteous only because, as a means and instrument, it lays hold of, and accepts, God’s grace and Christ’s merit in the Gospel promise.”
This is an important distinction. Faith produces good works. These good works justify us in the sense that they prove the existence of saving faith and justification before God. But we are never justified before God on account of our works, because our works are insufficient to make atonement for our sins and satisfy God’s wrath. Only Christ can do this. Faith justifies only by clinging to Christ Jesus, His atonement, and forgiveness for His sake.
Conclusion:
Paul and James do not disagree. It is untenable to try to make Paul say what the Roman Catholics assert James says, because Paul agrees with the rest of Scripture that sinners are saved by faith alone apart from their works (John 3:16; Genesis 15:6; Psalm 103; etc.). It makes much more sense to interpret James, not only in light of Paul, but in light of the rest of Scripture. In this way, and in reading James in context, we see that James affirms that a person is saved by the power of God’s Word according to His will (James 1:18). James uses faith in chapter 2 differently than saving faith. Likewise, he uses justified not as being declared righteous and innocent of all sin before God for salvation before His judgment throne, but as a proof of the justifying faith that exists in the person’s heart.
There is no better summary of James’s position on justification by faith and works than what Chemnitz writes in the Examination, as quoted earlier: Examination of the Council of Trent vol. 1:539: “It is clear that James is disputing about the demonstrations or manifestation of faith against the idle opinion of an empty faith and justification, for he says: ‘If a man says he has faith, let him show his faith by his works.’ And he takes the example of Abraham, which the angel himself interprets of the proof or manifestation, when he says: ‘Now I know that you fear the Lord.’ James, therefore, is speaking of this, that the obedience and good works of Abraham declared and furnished proof that He had truly been justified by faith. For to James ‘to be justified’ means to be declared righteous through external testimonies.”

Father's Grace, Son's Merits, and Holy Spirit's Work in the Sacraments: Trinity 12

Trinity 12 sermon preached by Rev. James Preus on Mark 7:31-37 shows that in the Sacraments, Christ offers us the grace of God the Father, the merits of God the Son, and the efficacy of God the Holy Spirit to be received through faith alone. 
You can read the entire sermon at Christforus.org. 

Jesus Is the Good Samaritan: Trinity 13 Sermon by Rev. Rolf Preus 2009

Rolf Preus preached this Trinity 13 sermon on Luke 10:23-37 in 2009. You can read the text at Christforus.org. 

Two Religions: Trinity 11 Sermon 2024

Trinity 11 sermon preached by Rev. James Preus on Luke 19:9-14 and Genesis 4:1-15. There are two religions in the world: the religion of grace and the religion of works. You can read the text of the sermon at Christforus.org. 

Episode 17: Is the Pope the Head of the Church?

Episode 17 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast answers the question, "Is the pope the head of the church? You can follow along to the outline at Christforus.org. 
#theology #Catholicism #pope #papalsupremacy #Lutheran
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church the Pope is “The successor of St. Peter as Bishop of Rome and Pontiff of the universal Catholic Church. The pope exercises a primacy of authority as Vicar of Christ and shepherd of the whole Church; he receives the divine assistance promised by Christ to the Church when he defines infallibly a doctrine of faith or morals.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines Papacy: “The supreme jurisdiction and ministry of the pope as shepherd of the Whole Church. As successor of St. Peter, and therefore Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ, the pope is the perpetual and visible principle of unity in faith and communion in the Church.”
CCC 881 states, “The Lord made Simon alone, whom he called Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the Whole flock (Mt 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17). ‘The office of the binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.’ (Lumen Gentium* 22) This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.”
CCC 882 states, “The Pope Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, ‘is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.’ (Lumen Gentium 23) ‘For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.’ (Lumen Gentium 22; cf. Christus Dominus** 2, 9)”
* Lumen Gentium is a document of Vatican II, November 21, 1964, which defines the nature and mission of the Catholic Church.
** Christus Dominus is the Vatican II Council “Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops,” October 28, 1965.
Summary of Catholic Position on the Pope
The Papacy is the supreme office of the Church, the Pope, being that Office holder. He is the Vicar of Christ.
Jesus appointed Peter as Pope and pastor of the entire Church (Matt. 16:18-19; John 21:15-17)
The Bishop of Rome is Peter’s successor and visible source of unity of the bishops and of the entire Church.
The bishops, who are successors of the apostles, and the entire priesthood receive the binding and loosing office from Peter.
The pope, as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church. This means he has the right and authority to “infallibly” define Church doctrine of faith and morals.
Defense of the Primacy of Peter
By James A. Corbett from The Papacy: A Brief History
The Primacy of Peter. The first and best source of our knowledge about the origin of the papacy is, of course, the New Testament. From it we learn that the first pope was Peter, a fisherman from Bethsaida on the left bank of the Jordan. Until he met Christ, he was called Simon, son of Jona. It was his brother Andrew who brought Simon to Christ. At this very first meeting Christ gave Simon a new name, one full of meaning for the role he was chosen to play. He renamed him Cepha, the Aramaic word for rock. The Greek word for rock is petros, whence the English Peter. The reason for giving him a new name was only made clear on another occasion before the Crucifixion when Christ said to Peter: “Thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In these simple but momentous words Christ singles out Peter from all the others to be the head of the Church and to have supreme power over it after Christ should have left them. The appointment was confirmed on His third appearance to the disciples after the Resurrection. Then He asked Peter three times whether he loved Him more than the other disciples. To Peter’s affirmative answers Christ replied: “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.” Peter, then was entrusted with the tremendous responsibility of teaching and caring for the whole body of the faith. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never doubted the primacy which had been given to Peter: when naming the Apostles they always name Peter first.
Peter himself had no doubt of it. As the Apostles assembled in Jerusalem after the Ascension, it was Peter who presided at the election of Matthias to replace Judas. Ten days later when at Pentecost the Apostles received the gift of tongues, it was again Peter who explained to the astounded crowds how Christ had fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament about Him. It was Peter who, first of all the Apostles, performed a miracle by restoring a lame man to health, and who told the rulers and elders of Jerusalem by what power he had cured the cripple. It was Peter to whom the vision was given which explained that Christianity was to be for the Gentiles also, and who answered those insisting that the Gentiles be circumcised. “There was much disputing over it until Peter rose and said to them: Brethren, you know well enough how from early days it has been God’s choice that the Gentiles should hear the message of the Gospel from the lips and so learn to believe.”
After a number of years of preaching in the Near East, Peter went to Rome and was martyred there. These two historical facts are no longer seriously questioned by historians of the early Church. There is still, however, strong disagreement as to whether the supreme jurisdiction entrusted by Christ to Peter devolved upon his successors, the bishops of Rome.
The Church teaches, and it has always taught, that the primacy of Peter is held by all the successors of Peter. The popes, like Peter, are the vicars of Christ. Christ founded the Church and remains its true, though invisible, head. The popes, as successors of Peter, are the visible heads of the Church in this world and have the same powers and duties which Christ gave to Peter: to preserve intact the original deposit of faith entrusted to the Apostles by Christ, to teach it with authority and without error to all nations, to be the center of unity with supreme jurisdiction over the Church.
This teaching has been and remains a great stumbling block for those outside the Church. It has led historians to interpretations that differ all the way from complete acceptance to complete rejection. This does not mean that the methods of historical research are faulty, but rather that every historian has a philosophy or theology which will influence his interpretations of the documents he studies.
The Historian is limited in his search for the truth not only by the great loss and destruction of documents of other ages, but by the nature of historical knowledge, its methods and limitations. History is not the only way of knowing. The philosopher and the theologian use different methods to discover truths of a different and even higher order. Their conclusions do not contradict the truths learned by the historian; rather, they complete them and give us a richer and deeper understanding of reality.
The documents which have survived indicate an almost universal acceptance in the early Church of a belief that the Bishop of Rome actually possessed supreme authority. They indicate the continuing presence of a strong tradition in favor of the primacy of Rome.
Actually, the successors of Peter did not claim a primacy, they exercised it. Before the end of the first century, Pope Clement I, who had known Peter and Paul, intervened with gentle firmness in a schism in the church of Corinth: “If some shall disobey the words which have been spoken by Him through us,” Clement writes, “Let them know, that they will involve themselves in no small transgression.” Although St. John the Apostle was still living at Ephesus and there were other bishops closer to Corinth, it was the Bishop of Rome who exercised the right to settle the dispute. Corinth recognized the right of Rome to intervene by accepting the decision.
The letter of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, which he wrote to the Roman church in 107 while on his way to Rome to be martyred, indicates the special position this eastern bishop recognized Rome as possessing: “Never have you envied anyone. You have been others’ teachers. I trust that what you have taught and prescribed to others may now be applied to yourselves.”
The pre-eminence of Rome is seen again in the book of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heretics, written towards the end of the second century. In this, desiring to offer a simple means of learning with security what is the true tradition of Christian belief, Irenaeus refers his reader to the tradition of the Bishop of Rome, whose succession from Peter and Paul, he says, all men know. He adds a further reason for the security of the Roman tradition: “With this church, on account of its greater authority, every church must agree.”
When the churches of Asia were in disagreement as to the proper time to celebrate Easter, about the year 190, Pope Victor did not hesitate to intervene and to excommunicate those churches that refused to follow the Roman custom. There was a great controversy and Victor’s severity was blamed. But no one questioned his right to act. Later, in 260, Pope Dionysius condemned the bishop of the great and ancient see of Alexandria in Egypt, and Alexandria accepted the decision.
In this same third century, Cyprian, the Roman lawyer who after his conversion became Bishop of Carthage, was no doubt an independent-minded bishop, yet he recognized Rome as the center of unity of faith. Although he disagreed with Pope Stephen on the question of rebaptizing converts from heresy, he saw clearly the true position of the pope in the Church.
These examples bring out the traditional teaching of the Church and show that even in the early times there was a widespread acceptance of the special, though undefined, position of the Bishop of Rome. The many visits of outstanding Christian leaders to Rome from all over the empire, and numerous letters of Popes, condemning heresy and correcting discipline, indicate the prestige that the papacy enjoyed. Its prominence was recognized, not because the popes of the early centuries had great personal merits comparable to those of Cyprian, an Ambrose, or an Augustine, but because the see of Rome, no matter who held it, was founded by Peter to whom the keys had been entrusted. To be sure, the jurisdiction of the popes was not exercised as often as in later centuries, but exercised it was, even though the Church was outlawed and its heads lived in the very city of the emperors who were determined to destroy Christianity altogether.
The history of the popes of the first three centuries is not well known. Often forced to live in hiding, they were hunted down and martyred like other members of the Church. We have few documents which relate their lives and deeds—only occasional glimpses, sometimes only their names; but always they are acting like men conscious of their supreme authority. The see of Rome is the only one for which we have a complete list of names of the bishops. (James A. Corbett [professor of history, University of Notre Dame], The Papacy: A Brief History, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. Princeton, New Jersey, 1956. Pages 9-13).
Quick Points
There is no question that St. Peter had a special place among the Apostles.
Along with James and John, he witnessed the resurrection of Jairus’s daughter (Luke 8:51), the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1), and was brought with Jesus to Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37).
Peter has the most private conversations with Jesus.
Paul calls Peter, along with James and John, pillars of the Church (Galatians 2:9).
There is no question that Bishop of Rome has had a special significance in church history, including the recognition of papal supremacy from many early and throughout history.
But, does Scripture teach that Jesus gave Peter and all his successors supremacy over the Church on earth?
Has the entire church unanimously believed the Pope to have supremacy over the Church?
Does Scripture give the pope authority to establish or even change doctrine?
Relevant Biblical Texts
ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Σίμων Πέτρος εἶπεν· Σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. 17 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Μακάριος εἶ, Σίμων Βαριωνᾶ, ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι ἀλλ’ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· 18 κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς· 19 δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ ὃ [n]ἐὰν δήσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ ὃ [o]ἐὰν λύσῃς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ 16:16-20
Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”  Matthew 16:16-20
Jesus calls Simon, Peter, which sounds like the Greek for rock. He then says, “on this rock I will build My Church.” Is Jesus saying the Church is built on Peter or on the confession, which Peter just made? Consider how the Lord is called a Rock throughout the Old Testament. Consider also how Jesus finishes the sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:24-27). The one who hears Jesus’ Words and does them is like a man who builds his house on a rock.
Jesus uses the singular form of you σοι, whoever, later He repeats almost the exact same words and addresses all the Apostles, using the plural form of you, ὑμῖν.
ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὅσα [q]ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένα [r]ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένα [s]ἐν οὐρανῷ.
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[f] in heaven.  Matt. 18:18
Power and Primacy of the Pope by Philip Melanchthon:
They cite against us certain passages, namely, [Matthew 16:18-19,] “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church.” Also, “I will give you the keys.” Also, [John 21:15,] “Feed My lambs,” and some others. … In all these passages, Peter is representative of the entire assembly of apostles, as appears from the text itself. Christ does not ask Peter alone, when He says, “Who do you say that I am? [Matt. 16:15]. What is said here to Peter alone in the singular number, “I will give you [singular] the keys; and whatever you [singular] bind” [16:19], is elsewhere expressed in the plural [e.g., Matthew 18:18,] “Whatever you [plural] bind”; [John 20:23,] “if you [plural] forgive the sins of anyone”). These words show that the Keys are given to all the apostles alike and that all the apostles are sent forth alike.In addition, it must be recognized that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church. Many most clear and firm arguments show this. For Christ, speaking about the keys, adds, for example, “If two of you agree on earth” (Matthew 18:19). Therefore, He grants the Keys first and directly to the Church. This is why it is first the Church that has the right of calling. For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the Keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the Keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to every one who desires it, just as it is actually manifested that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever you shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the Keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise, Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church when He says: Tell it unto the Church.Therefore, these passages demonstrate that Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of the apostles. They do not grant Peter any privilege or superiority or lordship. As for the declaration “on this rock I will build My church” [Matthew 16:18}, certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of a man. Rather, it has been built upon the ministry of the confession Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God [Matt. 16:16]. Therefore, Christ addresses Peter as a minister, “On this Rock, that is, this ministry. Therefore, He addresses him as a minister of this office in which this confession, and doctrine is to be in operation and says: “Upon this rock,” i.e., this preaching and preaching office. PPP 22-25.
Did the Ancient Church Agree that the Pope was the Head of the Church?
Origen (d. 253): And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, “ be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as have been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed to Peter only, “Whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit,” etc. … And if anyone says this (namely, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”) to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to everyone who becomes such as Peter was. For all bear the surname of “rock” who are imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock…” Origen’s Commentary on Matthew 11. ANF 9:456.
Cyprian (d. 258): And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;” yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.”  ANF 5:422.
Chrysostom (347-407): “Upon this rock,” not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Hilary (d. 367): The Father revealed to Peter that he should say, “You are the Son of the living God” [Matthew 16:17}. Therefore, the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession. This faith is the foundation of the Church.
Pope Gregory (590-604) OBJECTED TO BEING CALLED NIVERSAL BISHOP (Gregory I, Epistles, bk. VIII, no. 30, to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria (NPNF, ser. 2, 12:241))
“you address me saying, As you have commanded. This word, command, I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I did not, then, command, but was desirous of indicating what seemed to be profitable. Yet I do not find that your Blessedness has been willing to remember perfectly this very thing that I brought to your recollection. For I said that neither to me nor to any one else ought you to write anything of the kind; and lo, in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond reason demands is subtracted from yourself. For as for me, I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct,. Nor do I regard that as an honour whereby I know that my brethren lose their honor. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally. But far be this from us. Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon, and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors. And yet not one of them would ever use this title, that, while regarding the honour of all priests in this world, they might keep their own before Almighty God.”
Conclusion
Scripture does not say that Jesus made Peter the head of the entire Church nor does it teach that Peter’s successors receive the office of Vicar of Christ. Rather, Jesus says, whoever would be great must be a servant. The rock referred to by Christ in Matthew 16 refers to Peter’s confession, which is common to the entire Church. Jesus repeatedly gives the Power of the Keys to the entire Church, to all the disciples, and not just to Peter, even saying, “Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” And “Whatever two of you agree it will be done.”
The early Church by no means universally agreed that the Pope was supreme over the Church. Not even all the popes agreed to this.
The Eastern Orthodox have never acknowledged the Pope’s supremacy.
The teaching that the Pope is the head of the Church usurps the place of Christ and Holy Scripture. Christ alone is the Lord of the Church. And Scripture alone is the source of the Church’s teaching.
the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, Ephesians 2:19-20
The teaching that the Pope is the head of the Church has lead to great danger, as many popes have been immoral and corrupt and have changed Church doctrine. This was predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2: “For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. Vs. 3-4

He Has Done All Things Well: Trinity 12 Sermon by Rev. Rolf Preus 2011

Sermon preached by Rev. Rolf Preus for Trinity 12 of 2011 on Mark 7:31-37. You can read the entire sermon on Christforus.org. 

Learning from the Courage of Jesus: Trinity 10 Sermon 2024

Sermon preached by Rev. James Preus on Luke 19:41-48 for Trinity 10, 2024. You can read the sermon on Christforus.org. 

Episode 16: Early Church Fathers on Justification

Episode 17 of the Christ for Us Bible Study Podcast. Did the Lutheran Reformation invent a new teaching on justification not taught by the early church? In this episode Pastor Preus reveals quotes from church fathers over a thousand year period, which proclaim the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. Visit Christforus.org to learn more. 
#theology #earlychurch #Lutheran #justification 
Lutherans teach Sola Scriptura, Scripture alone. This means that only the Bible is the source and norm of all Christian doctrine. We call this the formal principle. We do not determine what we teach based on church councils, popes, or church fathers. We teach that a sinner is justified by grace through faith alone apart from his works when he believes that he is received into favor and that his sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, not because this is taught by any man, but because it is the clear teaching of Holy Scripture. That a sinner is justified by grace through faith alone in Christ alone is the material principle, that is, the chief teaching of all of Scripture.
However, the writings of the church should not be ignored. We treat the writings of the church fathers as helpful witnesses of Holy Scripture. The reason for this episode is that I have been increasingly seeing claims by those in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church that their respective denominations were founded by Jesus Christ, while the Lutheran and Protestant churches were founded in the sixteenth century. And as we just a few years ago celebrated the 500th anniversary of the Lutheran Reformation, clarification is in order. Is the Lutheran Church only five centuries old? Meaning, is the doctrine of the Lutheran Church that a sinner is justified by grace through faith alone apart from works an invention of Lutheran theologians, or does this doctrine predate the Lutheran Reformation in the Church? I recently read a chapter from Martin Chemnitz’s Examination of the Council of Trent, which compiles a number of quotes from early church fathers, which proves that the doctrine of the Lutheran Church that a sinner is justified before God by grace through faith alone apart from works for the sake of the innocent bitter sufferings and death of Jesus Christ was taught in the Church long before the sixteenth century. And in fact, it is the doctrines of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches that teach that justification is not only the forgiveness of sins through faith, but the renewal of the interior man, that is a new (manmade) teaching within the church.
Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent vol. 1, translated by Fred Kramer, CPH, St. Louis. Pgs. 514-522.
Basil the Great: 330-378 AD
Origen: 185-253 AD
Hilary: 310-367 AD
Ambrose: 340-397 AD
Augustine: 354-430 AD
Jerome: 340s-420 AD
Gregory the Great: Pope from 590-603
Bernard of Clairvaux:1090-1153
Posidonius (Friend of Augustine)
Anselm of Cantebury: Archbishop from 1093-1109
Bonaventura: 13c
Gerson: 14-15c